I think you'll find that the stupid Tories allowed a minority of the people of Britain have walked all of us into a black hole of economic uncertainty. They're the ones that called for the stupid referendum in the first place....

Double Fixed

But given that the outcome of the vote was what it was, there was obviously the sentiment there to validate holding the vote. So it would be undemocractic not to hold it. Obviously that's the way of the left, currently.

I think you'll find that a minority of the people of Britain have walked all of us into a black hole of economic uncertainty. They're the ones that voted for it, after all....

Fixed

Yes, but a majority of people that could be bothered to vote. Given how democracy works, one has to assume that those that did not simply don't care. It may be a flawed assumption, but there's not much else you can go with.

True - but the fact that they are the minority of the country remains the case. Almost like we should have some kind of turnout and minimum level of support requirements for big decisions like this.

I don't agree with that. I have no interest in someone who doesn't have an opinion affecting those that do.

The referendum wasn't like a general election; yes/no is pretty straight forward.

I think you've missed the point. I didn't suggest making people vote - just a supermajority and an acceptable turnout quota. Not voting does not always indicate what you appear to assume either but hey, I've little sympathy either.

1 person who cares is more important than 5 who don't when it comes to collective decision making.

Supermajority still seems like a sensible option though regardless no?

I'm not sure it does, particularly in a yes/no vote. Perhaps a minimum low threshold, but I think that would be below 50% of population in any case.

In the case of the EU referendum, turn out was higher than on average in any case. The winning margin was significant, around 1.3 million people more voted to leave.

What I object to enforcing a required supermajority if voting is optional. If it's compulsory, fine. If not, its simply away of allowing people who don't care enough to vote to prevent anything from ever being done.

Not to mention the sheer scales of the lies told by the leave campaign, the infamous NHS £350m per week number which was instantly disproved by the fact checkers.

But not only that, I personally know a lot of people who voted for leave off the back of that promise alone, people who rely on the NHS.

I’m certain if the vote was run again tomorrow the outcome would be completely different.

Both sides "lied", or bent the truth. What else would a rational person expect, the campaigns were run by politicians... The figure of £350m may be contentious, but the point wasn't. A government could direct more funds towards the NHS once they are free from the obligation of paying into the EU. That's why it was an effective message, because the remain side got bogged down in questioning the figure and in doing so reinforced the sentiment.

And on the opposite side, George Osbourne and co were scaremongering with promises of an imminent economic crash if we voted to leave. Which. Hasn't. Happened. But Remain voters strangely never bring that up when complaining about the "lies" from the referendum. The biggest irony being that anyone who's been paying attention for the past 20 years would have noticed being part of the EU does not provide economic stability.

I'm not going to play predicting fantasy referendums, but from my personal perspective there's been nothing to make me rethink - the attitude of EU politicians and the pissing around with the bureaucracy of leaving is just making me feel vindicated. Opinion polls have tended to show a larger majority wanting to go ahead with leaving than actually voted to leave. And the party who were pushing for a second vote at the GE bombed spectacularly. It's not really indicative of a mass change of heart, whatever your personal anecdotal evidence suggests.

I’ve since spoken to several other leave voters who were equally confused and still inexplicably chose to vote regardless.

Every remain voter I've heard from seems very confused. For starters, there's the "young people" who've not known any different to the EU and apparently opted to stay, yet then supported the most anti-EU party leader at the GE. It doesn't really add up to them knowing their oninons...

True - but the fact that they are the minority of the country remains the case. Almost like we should have some kind of turnout and minimum level of support requirements for big decisions like this.

And what happens if you don't meet the minimum level? Since there were only two options, not going with the majority from the vote means you'd have to go with the decision voted for by the even smaller minority.